Submitted: Sept. 4, 2013.
This decision has been designated as "Table of Decisions Without Published Opinions." in the Atlantic Reporter.
Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, C.A. Nos. K10A-06-009 and K12A-06-006.
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices.
JACK B. JACOBS, Justice.
This 13th day of November 2013, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and the record in this case, it appears to the Court that:
1. Claimant-below Regina L. Potter (" Potter" ) appeals from two Superior Court orders. The first order, issued in 2011, reversed an Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (" Board" ) decision that because Potter had been constructively discharged by her employer, the Delaware Department of Correction (" DOC" ), she was entitled to unemployment benefits. On remand, the Board found that Potter had voluntarily resigned from her employment without good cause, and denied her benefits. In April 2013, the Superior Court affirmed that Board decision. Potter appeals from both Superior Court orders. We find that Potter's claims have no merit and affirm.
2. In August 2009, it was discovered that Potter, a Correctional Officer at the Plummer Community Corrections Center, had two DOC offenders listed as " friends" on her Facebook page. On Friday, August 21, 2009, Warden Steven Wesley sent an e-mail to DOC staff initiating a " 210" disciplinary investigation into whether Potter's conduct violated DOC policies.
3. At the beginning of the investigation, Stephen Martelli, the president of the Correctional Officers Association of Delaware (the correctional officers' union), spoke with Potter about her situation. Martelli consulted the union's lawyer about the probable outcome of Potter's case, examined the content of Potter's Facebook page, and concluded that Potter's was a " non-win" case. Martelli then advised Potter that her best option was to resign; otherwise she would be terminated. Martelli did not speak with the Warden about the case before giving Potter this advice.
4. On Monday, August 24, 2009 (before the completion of the disciplinary investigation), Potter sent her resignation to the Warden by e-mail, which stated: " Following the advice of my union representative in regards to your recommendation; I, Regina Potter am resigning...."  Potter later testified that Martelli had told her that, instead of transferring her to another facility, the Warden wanted Potter to resign. Both the Warden and Martelli denied that they had had any conversations, either about transfer or resignation, before Potter submitted her resignation.
5. In September 2009, Potter submitted a claim for unemployment benefits to the Delaware Department of Labor. Her claim was denied, first by the Claims Deputy and then by the Appeals Referee. Both concluded that Potter had voluntarily quit her employment without good cause. Potter then appealed the Referee's decision to the Board. The Board held a hearing in May 2010, during which Martelli testified. The DOC submitted DOC Policy 9.12 as evidence that administrative remedies had been available to Potter, which she failed to pursue before resigning. In a June 2010 decision, the Board determined that Potter had been constructively discharged from the DOC because Martelli's advice offered her no " reasonable alternative." 
6. The DOC appealed to the Superior Court, which, in a November 29, 2011 order, found as a matter of law that, because Martelli was not an agent of the DOC, Potter had not been pressured by her employer to resign. Accordingly, Potter was not constructively discharged. The court remanded the case to the Board for " a determination of whether the Claimant had good cause for her voluntary resignation."  On remand the Board, without conducting a hearing, found that Potter did not have good cause for her voluntary resignation. The Superior Court affirmed that decision in an April 8, 2013 order. This appeal followed.
7. We review a Superior Court ruling that, in turn, has reviewed a ruling of an administrative agency, by directly examining the decision of the agency,  to determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal errors. Claims that the agency committed errors of law are reviewed de novo. Absent an error of law, we review an agency decision for abuse of discretion. The agency will be found to ...